Voting to remain

[Jules-and-Boo]

ok, deal.... I'm fickle.....

that aside, I've just been reading about how EU law would prevent renationalisation of the railways.

I'd quite like to see that happen. EU is all about competition and the laws are stating that we must allow competitive companies to run on our tracks.

Voting to remain, while it does have many positives - also is shadowed by some serious negatives.

There are a lot of views on here, but they all seem to be one-sided and not acknowledging the values of the others - which is the true value of debate.

[LondonMix]

Why are you still reading it Otta? I'm sure if the vote is Remain the thread will die but if not I imagine there will be loads to discuss about all the future proposals 😀

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can you all promise that on Friday this all stops

> whatever happens?

[rendelharris]

Castillo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> London mix a vast majority of your posts are guess

> work ( not sure if you know or just cant see it

> !)

You can agree or disagree with LM's analysis but it is analysis rather than guesswork and I appreciate the effort s/he's put in to share her/his opinions. Any prediction of the future movements of markets etc can be dismissed as "guesswork" if you wish, but then what else can one work on? I'd call it informed speculation.

"We cannot elect or remove the people who govern us - and that is undemocratic" - despite the myth that we are governed by an elite of EU civil servants, they are answerable to the European Parliament and we vote for them. You might not want to share democracy with Europe, fair enough, but if we vote for the parliament that governs Europe then that is democratic.

[Burbage]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I find it incredulous that anyone would think what

> happens on the stock market doesn't affect us all,

> esp given the history of austerity that follows

> every single major crash. When markets crash,

> government tax revenue falls, which means spending

> on services falls.

Good grief.

The stock market reflects the economy. It doesn't work the other way round. Or, at least, it shouldn't. Sometimes it does, but only when there's something very wrong.

As ???? points out, that happened in the dotcom smash, when the unicorn-chasers finally realised that the majority of flaky outfits based on nothing but debt and hope wouldn't survive so much as a harsh word. Harsh words happened and it all toppled down. That did affect real businesses and real people, but only for a while. And the newly-cleared landscape made space for outfits like Microsoft, Apple etc. to make a new sort of future, albeit a future of monopolistic cyberbullies effectively dealing in human souls.

We're now in a broadly similar situation as back then, except that financial jiggery-pokery has further divorced the economic utility of a company from its share price. So there are companies that won't cope if someone sneezes. But we can't stop sneezing just to save their blushes. In any case, there are as many speculators (the founder of Hargreaves Lansdown, for one) pouring their millions into the Leave campaign as into the Remain campaign, and I'm guessing they wouldn't be doing that if they thought they'd lose money on the deal.

[uncleglen]

There are 750 MEPs -it is ridiculous number of unnecessary politicians to maintain- given that in reality,politicians are about as useful as a chocolate teapot imvho

Given that EU law would prevent the re-nationalisation of the railways, which, given the finite nature of fossil fuels and the congestion on the roads, (not to mention the pollution generated which the EU fine us for every year,) is the only sensible way forward in transportation- then EU law is a stupid ass and we should get out now

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

> Given that EU law would prevent the

> re-nationalisation of the railways, which, given

> the finite nature of fossil fuels and the

> congestion on the roads, (not to mention the

> pollution generated which the EU fine us for every

> year,) is the only sensible way forward in

> transportation- then EU law is a stupid ass and we

> should get out now.

That's simply not true, I'm afraid, much as Farage loves to say it. EU law requires non-restrictive competitive access to freight routes, it in no way proscribes nationalisation of railways. The First EU rail directive states: "Member States may exclude from the scope of this Directive railway undertakings whose activity is limited to the provision of solely urban, suburban or regional services." It's not the EU that stands in the way of railway renationalisation, it's the interests of private capital (I'm looking at you, Branson) and the conservative economic policies of successive governments. Look up the SNCF, with government backing (and it must be admitted a certain amount of cunning Gallic footwork worthy of Serge Blanco) they've retained predominant government control over the French rail network. It's a lack of UK government will and supine bowing to private capital that have landed our railways in the mess they're in today, not EU regulation.

[uncleglen]

EU law protects the rights of open access operators to operate outside of government control. Example:Grand Central Railway, a subsidiary of Arriva UK trains- owned by Deutsche Bahn since 2010.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/16/chocolate.war/

ffs

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> EU law protects the rights of open access

> operators to operate outside of government

> control. Example:Grand Central Railway, a

> subsidiary of Arriva UK trains- owned by Deutsche

> Bahn since 2010.

> http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/16/cho

> colate.war/

> ffs

Umm, your link is to a row about what constitutes chocolate. FFS indeed.

[Jules-and-Boo]

that's SO funny - thanks Uncle Glen.

so - back to the railways (chocolate is better)... the EU's objective in the First Railway Directive is clearly to "open up national freight and passenger markets to cross-border competition?. Hardly a precursor for nationalising railways - more about making money from the customer, which is pretty much where we are now.... focus on profit, lack of customer care....priorities, priorities...

Yes, it may have a caveat that it is ok with local/ urban or suburban lines - that's not really the point - is it.

Under EU law, it's now a legal requirement for independent companies to be able to apply for non-discriminatory track access on a member state's track....

Happy commuting?

[rendelharris]

Yes - it's clearly not ideal when considering the amount of track capacity, you're right, but the fact remains that the EU do not block nationalised railways, and other countries - France being the prime example - manage to maintain them efficiently and conform to EU law at the same time. The trouble with the UK is that instead of being clever, like France and Germany, we've fought against EU law even though we've signed up to it and thrown in a particular (usually Tory) brand of privatising incompetence against it. The EU is not the reason we have denationalised railways, that was the Thatcher government. Now, back to that chocolate thing...

[Jules-and-Boo]

many problems are solved with chocolate.

[rendelharris]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> many problems are solved with chocolate.

:-)

[????]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> that's SO funny - thanks Uncle Glen.

>

> so - back to the railways (chocolate is better)...

> the EU's objective in the First Railway Directive

> is clearly to "open up national freight and

> passenger markets to cross-border competition?.

> Hardly a precursor for nationalising railways -

> more about making money from the customer, which

> is pretty much where we are now.... focus on

> profit, lack of customer care....priorities,

> priorities...

>

> Yes, it may have a caveat that it is ok with

> local/ urban or suburban lines - that's not really

> the point - is it.

>

> Under EU law, it's now a legal requirement for

> independent companies to be able to apply for

> non-discriminatory track access on a member

> state's track....

>

> Happy commuting?

Because nationalised railways were so great, oh yes. There's some very rose tinted glasses about how great trains were pre-nationalisation in reality they were sh1te with terrible reliability and zero service ethic from the vast majority of employees. The massive increase in train traffic since privatisation reflects the massive improvement in stock, services and reliability despite the ridiculous 'truth' that things were so much better before. Crap.

[Rook]

@ Rendelharris, who said ...

"despite the myth that we are governed by an elite of EU civil servants, they are answerable to the European Parliament and we vote for them. You might not want to share democracy with Europe, fair enough, but if we vote for the parliament that governs Europe then that is democratic."

Well..

On a practical level we have clear evidence of the negative effect the EU has on the interests of the UK, in terms of policy and our ability to veto it - and indeed therefore in democracy itself. Before the referendum was called David Cameron promised sweeping reforms on the key issues that he acknowledged were key to the people of the UK. You cannot deny that that he largely failed to do this and the net result was a set of watered down solutions (and he was probably only given that under the threat of the referendum risk on the EU). This is a fact, not open to spin or special rose tinted EU glasses. So you have a situation where people in the UK want (and vote, and elect) a government on the key issues, only for the EU to veto or overule or disallow it. How is that democratic?

This vote is about Idealogy versus Reality!

[Castillo]

Exactly Rook what's the point in an elected uk government if they have to impose rulings by an EU hierarchy we didn't vote for or want

And let's not forget that the EU is simply a large group of countries pulled together to be told " we are now one big country" - that's quite undemocratic too. Not only that - but if anyone wants to deal with anyone else within that group you can only do so by being part of that club , or we will impose tariffs to inhibit you. That starts to sound a bit like a dictatorship ?

I'm pro Europe and pro immigration and all the other wonderful things it's done for us - but I'm anti the current EU and I genuinely don't think we can change it from the inside- that's been proved with Cameron's negotiations.

We vote to leave we take back control and a new system will be negotiated. Look at the rest of Europe they are all voting against the EU set up. Elections in Spain then Italy then more referendums. Totally agree that it's about ideology versus reality and it's the Reality that you simply cannot ignore

[rendelharris]

Rook Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

So you have a situation

> where people in the UK want (and vote, and elect)

> a government on the key issues, only for the EU to

> veto or overule or disallow it. How is that

> democratic?

The people in the UK also voted for the European Parliament, which holds primacy in certain Europewide issues. Saying that's undemocratic is like saying it's undemocratic for the national government to be able to overrule a county council, I voted for my county council on key local issues, what right does national government have to overrule it? All democratic systems have tiers stretching from local to national and beyond. Now, you may wish to make national government the point at which it stops, and that's a perfectly valid opinion, but you can't call something for which you have a free vote undemocratic, it simply isn't.

[Rook]

A national government overruling a local council in the same country is democratic

An institution making laws and decisions imposed on a country that has not voted for those laws or has no ability to vote against them, is not

[root]

Rook Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A national government overruling a local council

> in the same country is democratic

> An institution making laws and decisions imposed

> on a country that has not voted for those laws or

> has no ability to vote against them, is not

Can you give an example of one such law or decision you feel particularly strongly about?

[LondonMix]

A dictatorship? Every country in the world imposes trade tariffs on other countries unless they are part of a free trade block / have a free trade agreement. There is nothing unusual or dictatorial about this. Its always been the UK's approach to trade dating back centuries.

Castillo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly Rook what's the point in an elected uk

> government if they have to impose rulings by an EU

> hierarchy we didn't vote for or want

>

> And let's not forget that the EU is simply a large

> group of countries pulled together to be told " we

> are now one big country" - that's quite

> undemocratic too. Not only that - but if anyone

> wants to deal with anyone else within that group

> you can only do so by being part of that club , or

> we will impose tariffs to inhibit you. That starts

> to sound a bit like a dictatorship ?

>

> I'm pro Europe and pro immigration and all the

> other wonderful things it's done for us - but I'm

> anti the current EU and I genuinely don't think we

> can change it from the inside- that's been proved

> with Cameron's negotiations.

>

> We vote to leave we take back control and a new

> system will be negotiated. Look at the rest of

> Europe they are all voting against the EU set up.

> Elections in Spain then Italy then more

> referendums. Totally agree that it's about

> ideology versus reality and it's the Reality that

> you simply cannot ignore

[rendelharris]

Castillo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly Rook what's the point in an elected uk

> government if they have to impose rulings by an EU

> hierarchy we didn't vote for or want

EU elections, May 2014. As I said above, by all means campaign to have the UK government as the top tier of our system if that's what you want, but let's drop this nonsense that there's a faceless unelected EU monster that imposes laws on us without our having a say. Everything the EU decides is either decreed by the European Parliament, for which we vote, or agreed between governments, for which we vote.

[Louisa]

Here's a good example root. Fishing, and the 'common fisheries policy'. Not just in the UK, but across the EU, localised fishing communities have been left decimated by undemocratic decisions made far from home, by people who little to no understanding of the micro structure of a local economy and its reliance on one two particular industries.

Parts of Cornwall and Devon are the biggest beneficiaries of EU funding, but despite this they remain some of the most anti-EU constituents in the whole UK. They've seen first hand the damage farming and agricultural decisions made abroad have marginalised their communities and left generations out of work. Unlike here in London, where one door closes and another opens up, these places do not have those options open to them. And I think, most would prefer to be in control of their local economies rather than live off handouts from the EU.

Louisa.

[LondonMix]

The UK elects members to the European parliament and the European Parliament does vote on EU laws. The laws are not being imposed without a vote by elected representatives of member states.

The analogy is akin to voting for your local MP on an issue that matters to you but then your MP being outvoted on that issue in the House of Commons by a majority of other MPs.

Its as democratic as that process is.

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rook Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > A national government overruling a local

> council

> > in the same country is democratic

> > An institution making laws and decisions

> imposed

> > on a country that has not voted for those laws

> or

> > has no ability to vote against them, is not

>

> Can you give an example of one such law or

> decision you feel particularly strongly about?

[Louisa]

If you are a young person growing up in one of these isolated communities, you have no future. All the traditional industries you relied upon have now gone thanks to EU regulation, something we cannot control. Imagine growing up in one of these places with no future and no job prospects? Oh but it's ok because the EU is funding a regeneration project which involves rebuilding the town square, great.

Louisa.

[LondonMix]

Louisa, how have fishing communities been left decimated by the common fisheries policy in your view. Are you blaming that policy for the over 100 year decline in fishing stock?

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here's a good example root. Fishing, and the

> 'common fisheries policy'. Not just in the UK, but

> across the EU, localised fishing communities have

> been left decimated by undemocratic decisions made

> far from home, by people who little to no

> understanding of the micro structure of a local

> economy and its reliance on one two particular

> industries.

>

> Parts of Cornwall and Devon are the biggest

> beneficiaries of EU funding, but despite this they

> remain some of the most anti-EU constituents in

> the whole UK. They've seen first hand the damage

> farming and agricultural decisions made abroad

> have marginalised their communities and left

> generations out of work. Unlike here in London,

> where one door closes and another opens up, these

> places do not have those options open to them. And

> I think, most would prefer to be in control of

> their local economies rather than live off

> handouts from the EU.

>

> Louisa.

[Rook]

Hi Root- sure - for starters, please can I defer to an article from Open Europe..

Top 100 EU rules cost Britain ?33.3bn..

Open Europe estimates that the top 100 EU regulations cost the UK economy ?33.3bn annually (2014 prices).

Source: Open Europe, UK Government, Financial Conduct Authority

Based on an analysis of UK Government Impact Assessments (IAs), Open Europe estimates that the cost of the 100 most burdensome EU-derived regulations to the UK economy stands at ?33.3bn a year in 2014 prices. This is more than the ?27bn the UK Treasury expects to raise in revenue from Council Tax in the current (2014-15) financial year.

The top five costliest EU-derived regulations in force in the UK:

1) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy ? Recurring cost: ?4.7bn a year

2) The CRD IV package ? Recurring cost: ?4.6bn a year

3) The Working Time Directive ? Recurring cost: ?4.2bn a year

4) The EU Climate and Energy Package ? Recurring cost: ?3.4bn a year

5) The Temporary Agency Workers Directive ? Recurring cost: ?2.1bn a year

According to the IAs, these regulations also provide a total benefit of ?58.6bn a year. However, ?46bn of this benefit stems from just three items, which are vastly over-stated. For example, the stated benefit of the EU?s climate targets (?20.8bn) was dependent on a global deal to reduce carbon emissions that was never struck. In fact, Open Europe estimates that up to 95% of the benefits envisaged in the impact assessment have failed to materialise.

Taking the regulations individually, the impact assessments show that Ministers signed off at least 26 of the top 100 EU-derived regulations, despite the IAs explicitly stating that the costs outweigh the estimated benefits. These regulations include the UK Temporary Agency Workers Directive and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

A further 31 of the costliest EU-derived regulations have not been quantified. Between the over-stated benefits, the regulations that come with a net cost and the ones with unquantified benefits, it remains unclear how many of these EU-derived rules actually come with a net benefit in reality, showing that there is plenty of scope to cut regulatory cost to businesses and the public sector.